Blind faith and evolution

[Kayenneh]

You guys are still floating in the darkness of total ignorance by pretending that the brain the mind and the consciousness are all the same thing.

Well, you do have a point. I'm quite amazed that a man of your brain inactivity is even able to write anything remotely coherent.

By being stuck in the vehicle for so long now you come to believe that the vehicle and the driver are the same thing just as the body, the brain and the I are all the same.

Prooooof, where's your bloody proof?

The day you will get you arse off the vehicle then you will realize that that was not the case but by that time you will also realize that you waste so much time and this will prolong your suffering.

The only thing I'm suffering at the moment is fools like you.

Coming back to the meaning of the word evolution even here you confine this word to the physical meaning as if this word should be confine to only this aspect.

The Theory of Evolution is 'confined' to reality and not the philosophical. If you want to discuss ideas, get at least your concepts straight.

Everything in this universe take ages and ages to evolve.

But what, didn't you just say that 'belief' in evolution is for suckers? Or is it only about the kind of evolution you don't understand?

The perception of what is around, what we are where we come from where we go and the progress that we steadily make to improve ourselves is also part and parcel of evolution and this is not physical.

Fail. It is physical.

All this is part of evolution within in the deep of our consciousness. brain.

You do realize that without a brain no such thing as 'consciousness' would exist?

This process is individual as we can see by looking at smart and intelligent people and by looking at idiots so everybody build up their own consciousness step by step.

Proof motherfucker, proof!

The similarity to physical evolution is only that the change happen through a long long time span and this require many reincarnations.

Reincarnation? Really..?

The first human of a million years ago like the homo erectus did not have the kind of consciousness that we got now.

Duh dumb-dumb, Homo erectus had a different brain.

It was build up after many reicarnation.

Seriously dude, proof!

The very science that you guys rely to in order to prove your theory will soon contradict you when it will be shown that in one life you can not possibly get the kind of consciousness that you got now and this will smash up your dogma and blind faith in materialism.

[Little Rik]

We could do some experiment, some cuts here and there on his brain, to see how long his dualism will stand.

As far as you are encased into a physical body it is normal that you will feel pain.
In order to understand how the system works and the differences between body mind and consciousness one will have to expand the consciousness but to do this one will also have to get his-her arse off the vehicle of materialism.
With the body you can not be in London and New York at the same time but with the mind this is a little more easy.
By developing your consciousness this is even more easy but of course until you got your arse stuck to the vehicle of materialism this is not possible.
But that does not mean that that is not possible.
Everything is possible even not to feel pain when you cut yourself but this logic is miles too far from anyone with the arse stuck in the material arena.

http://jamie-monk.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...urite.html

[Cyberman]

I didn't believe in reincarnation in my previous llife either.

[LastPoet]

Why does this feel like spam?

[Cyberman]

Also, the origins of the Universe itself is taken on a measure of faith.

No it's not. Seriously, I's not. Even if relevant scientists have to speculate about the conditions at the point of the beginning, such speculation is used to fuel investigation. They don't simply stop there and believe they fouind the answer.

Since we do not know the dynamics of how our universe came into existence. This question has spurred intense debate in the cosmology, physics, astronomy, and theoretical physics fields.

Science isn't decided by debate. Also I question your use of the word 'intense' in this context. Do you have data for this claim? Show your work!

We do know several deductive facts regarding the origins of our universe. 1. Whatever "existed" prior to our universe. It had to have contained all potential energy of our universe.

You do realise that the total energy of the Universe is zero, right?

2. It also had to have a catalyst of some kind to expand.

I've said this many times: consider the whole Universe compressed into a singularity. All matter, all time, even all of space itself. What reason do we have to think that such a structure would be stable? We already know atomic structures break down spontaneously. Why should the start of the Universe be any different in this regard? I'm not claiming to have all the answers of course, but isn't that better than just assuming there isn't one?

3. Whatever influenced it had to have at least the same power and not obey the laws of physics as we understand them today.

I'm going to apparently contradict my previous statement (and then commit seppoku for the hideous split infinitive). Anyway, the laws of physics inevitably break down (aaagh - another one!) under extreme conditions, such as at the Big Bang. Convenient, perhaps. Blame Einstein.

With those three observations we hold to a small measure that again nature brought our universe into existence.

You have to go wherever the evidence leads. So far, nothing to do with the Big Bang has a face on it.

Now do I call those "blind" faith, no blind faith by definition is faith without rational and logical reason to have faith into it. Blind faith means exactly as the name implies "blind". It means you have no deductive or even inductive logic to apply to it. You simply have faith in it because you choose to. So "blind" faith in regards to science cannot exist as most "faith" in science has reasoning and deductive/inductive reasoning behind it.

I wish people would stop harping on about logic as though it was the ultimate, indeed the only, tool in the box. Logic has to be grounded in reality or else you can reason yourself round in circles until you disappear up your own arse. It tends to give one a somewhat narrow, dark and smelly view of the world.

[LastPoet]

Logic doesn't really make a tool for knowledge, it does help to give structure to thought, but when without grounding to reality, e.g. empirical evidence it is rather worthless. Time better spent masterbating

[bladevalant546]

First off all thanks for the response I found it informative.

No it's not. Seriously, I's not. Even if relevant scientists have to speculate about the conditions at the point of the beginning, such speculation is used to fuel investigation. They don't simply stop there and believe they found the answer.

Now this is more a semantic game. So let us put the definition of Faith here.
faith
/feɪθ/ Show Spelled [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith

Now we see here the actual definition…so according to good ole webster I withdraw my statement then. So faith only applies in science if there is not enough evidence to quality it as proven. However any hypothesis that does not have enough “proof”. Then according to definition of proof and definition of faith. They have faith in the hypothesis, and that it will be substantiated by fact.

Science isn't decided by debate. Also I question your use of the word 'intense' in this context. Do you have data for this claim? Show your work!

This is fair, I will simply supply you with the current theories floating around. I would like to make mention I thought it was well known that several theories are floating around which means there is no universal solution of the origin of the entire universe as of yet. Here is decent collection of these theories. (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~danr/ph367u/report.pdf) I am reading it for my own enjoyment. However, this shows that there is still debate in the scientific community.

You do realise that the total energy of the Universe is zero, right?

Are talking about this hypothesis? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe)

I've said this many times: consider the whole Universe compressed into a singularity. All matter, all time, even all of space itself. What reason do we have to think that such a structure would be stable? We already know atomic structures break down spontaneously. Why should the start of the Universe be any different in this regard? I'm not claiming to have all the answers of course, but isn't that better than just assuming there isn't one?

I am sorry for my wording, it could have been better I am working on that. Your questions are founded, however my statement based on induction had to have some kind of catalyst. At the same time, maybe there is not one. Perhaps Hawkings was right and it kinda just happened. Again I do not know all the answers merely stating what I learned from what I read about the origins of time. I just know that there is not a general answer to what “caused” the big bang. I think we will find out once we understand QM better.

I'm going to apparently contradict my previous statement (and then commit seppoku for the hideous split infinitive). Anyway, the laws of physics inevitably break down (aaagh - another one!) under extreme conditions, such as at the Big Bang. Convenient, perhaps. Blame Einstein.

Yea understood, once black holes and QM was discovered…that screw things up. I will admit my ignorance of the total scope of this.

You have to go wherever the evidence leads. So far, nothing to do with the Big Bang has a face on it.

Fair enough, however merely stating on those who believe it was nature 100% however there is inductive reasoning behind this.

I wish people would stop harping on about logic as though it was the ultimate, indeed the only, tool in the box. Logic has to be grounded in reality or else you can reason yourself round in circles until you disappear up your own arse. It tends to give one a somewhat narrow, dark and smelly view of the world.

In my opinion I think our minds work on seeing observational patterns and then we adapt based on those patterns. We also connect seemingly irrelevant pattern information. This is usually falls under either deductive or inductive logic or reasoning. I however agree logic must be based in reality and it influenced by our lenses by which we view the world. Could you express other tools that I might be missing, I am eager learn.

[Doubting Thomas]

Everything in this universe take ages and ages to evolve.

Not bacteria. 30 years ago nobody was talking about antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and infections like MRSA didn't exist.

[Bad Writer]

So, Enrico, how about we do a little experiment? Let's remove your brain and see if your consciousness survives the process. No matter how hard you believe that your mind will continue on after we physically put the brakes on it, to us, you'll just be dead, dead, dead. Everything that we can observe in reality will tell us that Enrico no longer exists at that point.

[Walking Void]

This is disgraceful to science. We have reproducible experiments that always give us the same results, and You compare it to crossing your fingers hoping for your dreams to be fulfilled without any action being done. What the fuck Enrico?